Real Book Errors

[golfbulldog]

Homer Kelly was a great man. He has made a brilliant contribution to the golfing world. His work has greatly increased my understanding and application of the golf stroke. The errors we are discussing in this thread do not diminish the greatness of The Golfing Machine.

This purpose of this thread is to discuss some of the stuff Homer didn't get right. If you are convinced that Homer got every bit of the science and geometry correct, then this thread is not for you. Or if you don't care about these errors because it doesn't make a difference to your score, please go to the other sections of this site, where professional contributors such as Lynn Blake and Ted Fort are more than happy to help you with your game.

So...pleeeeease get back on topic!

Exactly!!


An area that ought to be amenable to definite physical understanding is the concept of resisting impact deceleration. It is a key part of the book and some people think that this is impossible.

Whilst the alignments that Homer puts forward to achieve resistance to deceleration would seem to be correct ( right forearm flying wedge and lagging clubhead ) - how would one set out to prove or disprove this - in such a way that all would believe!

TGM with proof of its core statements would be a very powerful tool. TGM whose core statements happen to be correct but for the wrong reasons will always be open to attack and scepticism.

Weed out the weak physics and clearly distinguish the " seems -as-ifs" from the "real feels" and TGM grows stronger. Just as Homer modified his 1st edition to improve it...

PS. Homer never hid his credentials - an employee of Boeing and instructor in their problem solving courses... a very practical man with a natural understanding of natural physics ! So what you get in the book is the fruit of such a man. But perfect...?? only if equal or better brains can fail to correct it... it is easy and fair to raise the questions but few can answer them convincingly and openly.

[6bmike]

Exactly!!


An area that ought to be amenable to definite physical understanding is the concept of resisting impact deceleration. It is a key part of the book and some people think that this is impossible.

Whilst the alignments that Homer puts forward to achieve resistance to deceleration would seem to be correct ( right forearm flying wedge and lagging clubhead ) - how would one set out to prove or disprove this - in such a way that all would believe!

TGM with proof of its core statements would be a very powerful tool. TGM whose core statements happen to be correct but for the wrong reasons will always be open to attack and scepticism.

Weed out the weak physics and clearly distinguish the " seems -as-ifs" from the "real feels" and TGM grows stronger. Just as Homer modified his 1st edition to improve it...

PS. Homer never hid his credentials - an employee of Boeing and instructor in their problem solving courses... a very practical man with a natural understanding of natural physics ! So what you get in the book is the fruit of such a man. But perfect...?? only if equal or better brains can fail to correct it... it is easy and fair to raise the questions but few can answer them convincingly and openly.

Where are the 'seems as ifs' in Kelley's book?
That is a far cry from labeling a legend showing momentum of the ball as a vector -commonly used in the aero space industry btw- without regard of its mass or directional component, just a point of reference and out and out misused of physical laws.

[golfbulldog]

Where are the 'seems as ifs' in Kelley's book?
That is a far cry from labeling a legend showing momentum of the ball as a vector -commonly used in the aero space industry btw- without regard of its mass or directional component, just a point of reference and out and out misused of physical laws.

Resisting impact is a "seems as if" if you believe some of the science presented in "Search for the Perfect Swing" and websites eg. Tutelman stuff ( he seems to have no agenda / no score to settle ) ... http://www.tutelman.com/golfclubs/De...wing4.php?ref=

If this is accepted as true then it makes the radius of the primary lever immaterial - at least for anything other than enhancing clubhead speed. The only thing that matters is the mass and velocity of the clubhead - not the length of the lever. ( although for a given angular velocity, the longer the lever the greater velocity of the clubhead) but why bring mass into the discussion?? Therefore "increasing effective clubhead mass" is unhelpful concept. There may be some benefit to alignmment and clubface control in keeping left wrist flat and hence extending lever from clubhead to left shoulder... but that is clubface control and not increasing effective mass.

The mix of pure science and "seems as if" is a potential weak point for TGM. Correction or peer-reviewed confirmation of the science strengthens TGM.

I , like Tongzilla, have found enormous benefits from studying Homer's works and learning how to read the book from this website. Very grateful for the opportunity to learn and discuss.

[neil]

I'm getting tired of all this CRAP.
I'm a pretty placid individual normally, but I'm taking this opportunity, on Lynn's site, to expend some steam,so I am quite prepared for this post to be deleted by Admin.
To quote page 5 of the 6th edition:-
"As a term is specifically defined herein,that is the basic connotation which is always a dictionary definition but not necessarily that of physics,electrical ,etc.And the dictionary is generally considered a standard of precision.Scientific terms in quotes denotes a loose application with obvious intent,because no better term seems available .Measurements given herein are for the golf course rather than the laboratory but the laboratory will show them well within acceptable tolerances.Clarity and usefulness are the only motive.The result is that this book provides a complete ,unified golfing terminology."
SO WHICH PIECE OF THAT DO YOU "knockers "NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!!!
I'm an Engineer (civil) ,and I do understand certain things about force ,motion ,levers ,vectors ,etc etc etc .

And I really don't give a sh** whether some nitpicker wants a fight about how "correct" Mr Kelly was -There isn't one to be had!

-read above!

If you can't read the book -on the basis it was written ,and play better,then see an AI .
Or write your own .
Just get off the "what's wrong with the technical side "bandwagon.
IF YOU READ IT -HE TOLD YOU!

[12 piece bucket]

Resisting impact is a "seems as if" if you believe some of the science presented in "Search for the Perfect Swing" and websites eg. Tutelman stuff ( he seems to have no agenda / no score to settle ) ... http://www.tutelman.com/golfclubs/De...wing4.php?ref=

If this is accepted as true then it makes the radius of the primary lever immaterial - at least for anything other than enhancing clubhead speed. The only thing that matters is the mass and velocity of the clubhead - not the length of the lever. ( although for a given angular velocity, the longer the lever the greater velocity of the clubhead) but why bring mass into the discussion?? Therefore "increasing effective clubhead mass" is unhelpful concept. There may be some benefit to alignmment and clubface control in keeping left wrist flat and hence extending lever from clubhead to left shoulder... but that is clubface control and not increasing effective mass.

The mix of pure science and "seems as if" is a potential weak point for TGM. Correction or peer-reviewed confirmation of the science strengthens TGM.

I , like Tongzilla, have found enormous benefits from studying Homer's works and learning how to read the book from this website. Very grateful for the opportunity to learn and discuss.

There's no doubt that the term "effective mass" could be somewhat criticized . . . BUT essentially what he is getting at is again inertia. Something with a longer radius has more resistance to change relative. Goes back to Conservation of Angular Momentum. Now there are some guys on other sites that say that COAM doesn't really play much part in the golf swing . . . I would like to hear about that. That would be the proverbial "blockbuster" that 6B spoke of. I'm "banned" in the U.S.A. . . . so I can't read that stuff. But I know that you frequent other places . . . . what's the scoop on COAM not really being a part of the golf swing?

[6bmike]

I'm getting tired of all this CRAP.
I'm a pretty placid individual normally, but I'm taking this opportunity, on Lynn's site, to expend some steam,so I am quite prepared for this post to be deleted by Admin.
To quote page 5 of the 6th edition:-
"As a term is specifically defined herein,that is the basic connotation which is always a dictionary definition but not necessarily that of physics,electrical ,etc.And the dictionary is generally considered a standard of precision.Scientific terms in quotes denotes a loose application with obvious intent,because no better term seems available .Measurements given herein are for the golf course rather than the laboratory but the laboratory will show them well within acceptable tolerances.Clarity and usefulness are the only motive.The result is that this book provides a complete ,unified golfing terminology."
SO WHICH PIECE OF THAT DO YOU "knockers "NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!!!
I'm an Engineer (civil) ,and I do understand certain things about force ,motion ,levers ,vectors ,etc etc etc .

And I really don't give a sh** whether some nitpicker wants a fight about how "correct" Mr Kelly was -There isn't one to be had!

-read above!

If you can't read the book -on the basis it was written ,and play better,then see an AI .
Or write your own .
Just get off the "what's wrong with the technical side "bandwagon.
IF YOU READ IT -HE TOLD YOU!

I'm with you, Neil.

It was never about laboratory but about clamping the Hands on a club driving the clubface through the Line of Compression. Kelley did not write a science book about the golf swing like Cochran and Stobbs or Jorgensen. Now Cochran and Stobbs or Jorgensen may have been thinking Lab while hitting balls on a range but not HK, he was thinking G.O.L.F.

[12 piece bucket]

I'm getting tired of all this CRAP.
I'm a pretty placid individual normally, but I'm taking this opportunity, on Lynn's site, to expend some steam,so I am quite prepared for this post to be deleted by Admin.
To quote page 5 of the 6th edition:-
"As a term is specifically defined herein,that is the basic connotation which is always a dictionary definition but not necessarily that of physics,electrical ,etc.And the dictionary is generally considered a standard of precision.Scientific terms in quotes denotes a loose application with obvious intent,because no better term seems available .Measurements given herein are for the golf course rather than the laboratory but the laboratory will show them well within acceptable tolerances.Clarity and usefulness are the only motive.The result is that this book provides a complete ,unified golfing terminology."
SO WHICH PIECE OF THAT DO YOU "knockers "NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!!!
I'm an Engineer (civil) ,and I do understand certain things about force ,motion ,levers ,vectors ,etc etc etc .

And I really don't give a sh** whether some nitpicker wants a fight about how "correct" Mr Kelly was -There isn't one to be had!

-read above!

If you can't read the book -on the basis it was written ,and play better,then see an AI .
Or write your own .
Just get off the "what's wrong with the technical side "bandwagon.
IF YOU READ IT -HE TOLD YOU!

Wow didn't know you were an engineer! I figured that you were like some kinda international playboy type when I met you in O-town. I'm a guy and all that but I had you pegged for intergalactic pimpdaddy of the year type . . . with the whole accent, rugged good looks and impish charm. And now smart too!!! I may start "playing for the other team!"

[12 piece bucket]

I'm with you, Neil.

It was never about laboratory but about clamping the Hands on a club driving the clubface through the Line of Compression. Kelley did not write a science book about the golf swing like Cochran and Stobbs or Jorgensen. Now Cochran and Stobbs or Jorgensen may have been thinking Lab while hitting balls on a range but not HK, he was thinking G.O.L.F.

Bottom line Mr. Kelley just figured the stuff out for pure love of it. I could be wrong about this but I don't think he had a college degree . . . to me that makes this whole deal even MORE IMPRESSIVE. The fact is the dude didn't really know physics or the terms so he got a college physics book to figure it out. So what? I mean if people just want to rip chapter 2 out of their book and heck all the others but chapter 10 . . . chapter 10 is just plain monumental. How many of the goobers could have even come up with the stuff in Chapter 10 and 4 and 6?

[6bmike]

Bottom line Mr. Kelley just figured the stuff out for pure love of it. I could be wrong about this but I don't think he had a college degree . . . to me that makes this whole deal even MORE IMPRESSIVE. The fact is the dude didn't really know physics or the terms so he got a college physics book to figure it out. So what? I mean if people just want to rip chapter 2 out of their book and heck all the others but chapter 10 . . . chapter 10 is just plain monumental. How many of the goobers could have even come up with the stuff in Chapter 10 and 4 and 6?

Oh, I think he did better than that. TGM was 28 years old BEFORE HK put it in book form. He had a great sense of applied science based on truths and laws. He didn't need a book to figure it out but he needed a book so We could understand what he knew.

[neil]

Wow didn't know you were an engineer! I figured that you were like some kinda international playboy type when I met you in O-town. I'm a guy and all that but I had you pegged for intergalactic pimpdaddy of the year type . . . with the whole accent, rugged good looks and impish charm. And now smart too!!! I may start "playing for the other team!"

Steeaaadddyy Bucket!-What do you mean "the other team"!
I might have to get "the other half" to pay you a visit -and THAT would be worse than anything you'd expect from Mike O.